Microsoft Corporation v Motorola Mobility LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 1613 (11 December 2013)

Microsoft Corporation v Motorola Mobility LLC [2013] EWCA Civ 1613 (11 December 2013)

Claim 1 is not limited to push technology and includes polling methods; the patent is invalid for obviousness over common general knowledge and prior art.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1613
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Microsoft Corporation; Defendant/appellant: Motorola Mobility LLC; Part 20 Claimant/respondent: Motorola Mobility LLC; Part 20 Claimant/respondent: Motorola Mobility International Limited; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Corporation; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Luxembourg S. A. R. L.; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Interpretation, Obviousness, Novelty, Prior Art, Synchronisation Technology
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Interpretation Obviousness Novelty Prior Art Synchronisation Technology

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microsoft Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Motorola Mobility LLC

Defendant/appellant

Motorola Mobility LLC

Part 20 Claimant/respondent

Motorola Mobility International Limited

Part 20 Claimant/respondent

Microsoft Corporation

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Microsoft Luxembourg S. A. R. L.

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of Claim 1 of European Patent (UK) No. 0 847 654
  2. 2 Whether Claim 1 is limited to push technology or includes polling
  3. 3 Obviousness over common general knowledge and prior art

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 is not limited to push technology and includes polling methods; the patent is invalid for obviousness over common general knowledge and prior art.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Patent remains revoked
  • No permission to advance new interpretation arguments